Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia - PPGFIL/IFCH
URI Permanente desta comunidadehttps://repositorio.ufpa.br/handle/2011/5862
O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia (PPGFIL) do Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (IFCH) da Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). Foi criado em dezembro de 2010 e iniciou suas atividades efetivas em agosto de 2011, como curso de Mestrado em Filosofia, sendo o único na área em toda a Região Norte.
Navegar
Navegando Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia - PPGFIL/IFCH por Assunto "Aesthetics"
Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
- Resultados por página
- Opções de Ordenação
Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) Estética e Política nas Cartas de Friedrich Schiller(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2020-11-26) SOUSA, Alcione Santos de; CORÔA, Pedro Paulo da Costa; http://lattes.cnpq.br/3785172545288511The purpose of our research is to analyze the combination of the elements of aesthetics and the elements that are proper to morals or politics, as this is done by Friedrich Schiller in his Letters on aesthetics, translated in Brazil, in a more recent version as: The Aesthetic education of man in a series of letters. In order to realize our intention, we will initially make an exhibition trying to show how we can recognize in the philosophical tradition the concern with this type of theme, which makes us go back to the Greeks. In this way, it is with the tragedyographers that we recognize the association of tragedy with polis, in a horizon that links art and politics as the founder of the moral formation of the Greek man, later promoting, in the Letters of Schiller, the debate about the condition of our knowledge in the field of aesthetics and morals. As we can see, when analyzing the question of compatibility or complementarity between the domains of art and moral (political), from the perspective of the author of the Letters, proposing that the reciprocity between the two impulses - the sensitive and the rational, is unified in the man. We will notice that this possibility is what makes Schiller propose the primacy of aesthetic education for a moral formation with a view to the most natural politics, or without leaps, of humanity. According to Schiller, it is up to aesthetic culture to promote the ennoblement of character, since the attempts of reason alone do not present such satisfactory results for modern man. What causes the formation of the aesthetic state, through which we can find the idea of perfect humanity - as it was once present among the Greeks. In such a way, the educated man, aesthetically, manages to overcome the condition of his nature, by the demand of reason, but without completely losing sight of it, since it only gives way to the moral law, as a kind of game between these two domains. Beauty as freedom in the phenomenon is what sustains and shows that morality is a symbol of good - according to nature - freedom. It is in this sense that the Schiller Letters are founded on the idea that beauty seeks to promote the agreement between reason and the sensitive, unified in man, and makes them a complete being, like their mixed nature. Thus, Schiller establishes a moral education for man initiated by the freedom of art, hence serving the political purpose.Item Acesso aberto (Open Access) A Parresia nos cursos de Foucault de 1982-1984: ética, politica e estética(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2021-09-01) CORDEIRO FILHO, Flávio de Lima; CHAVES, Ernani Pinheiro; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5741253213910825; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8988-1910Michel Foucault's work (1926-1984) has a great conceptual scope, covering topics such as Madness, Power and even his debate on Truth. The focus of this dissertation will be his final writings, referring to the years 1982 to 1984, as it is within the courses given at the Collège de France where Foucault will work more specifically on notions of ethics, aesthetics and truth. Michel Foucault makes a return to classical antiquity, however such return has a specific concept in mind: parresia. Parresía is translated by Foucault as “courage of the truth”, “speakout”, “saying everything”, but the focus of the analysis of the French philosopher will be how such concept is deeply linked with the philosophical practice of antiquity, going through since from the political consequences of the use of parresia, the construction of an ethos, which in turn is linked with an aesthetic of the “true-tell”. Foucault will show that the concern with Truth is not only related to the epistemological debate between truth versus falsehood, that is, it is not in the French philosopher's interest to enter into the discussion of what makes a discourse and/or knowledge true. Foucault wants to investigate what makes the subject someone who tells the truth and how he is recognized as one who carries a true discourse. We realize that there is in Foucault a concern for the truth as the subject's trainer, how is frank speaking an influence in the formation of a subject? With that, Foucault claims that he will leave aside the “epistemological structures” to be concerned with the analysis of the “alleturgical forms” of the act of uttering the truth. Foucault will differentiate between “know yourself” and “take care of yourself” both Socratic formulations, however as each will develop and formulate distinct doctrines in the history of philosophy, while the former will hold a In the more epistemological/ metaphysical development of Socratic philosophy, the second will stick to a way of life, that is, a Socratic ethics. However, Foucault points out conditions for effecting parresia, in addition to the need to say everything, there is an urgent need to be a discourse totally linked to the thought of the one who speaks, so it is not merely an artificial speech. That is why the French philosopher says that parresia is not a mere adequacy of speech and thought, as the masters do, it is necessary to take a kind of vital risk, which will hurt and irritate the other, reaching the point of extreme violence, as soon as at the risk of losing the bond with the other. That is why it is important to emphasize the essential difference between rhetoric and parresia, placing the two attitudes in diametrically opposite ways, while one is a speech without any link with the interlocutor and with what is being said, parresia is a connection between the interlocutors , a bond so strong that it sets precedents for the rejection, punishment and revenge of the one who told the truth.